Re: rpm question

2001-12-26 Thread Benjamin Scott
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote: I downloaded a package ( kisocd-0.6.3) and tried to compile it. When it wouldn't , I returned to its web page to find that sure enough it won't build with autoconf 2.5 which is of course what I have. As others have said, your best bet (since you

Hardening a Linux box

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Lussier
Don't know who here subs to Security Focus's Focus-Linux list, but the last few days have had a great discussion about securing a linux box. The initial post to the list can be found here: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/91/246859 The thread is still continuing, so you can

Re: 2.4.3 issues? (was Re: Adaptec 2940UW)

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Lussier
In a message dated: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:43:56 EST Tom Rauschenbach said: This not related to an Adaptec 2940UW but generic CD burners. I can read fine but cannot burn. It tells me there is no media [sic] in the drive. Obviously the kernel sees the device and xdcroast lets me configure it.

Re: rpm question

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Lussier
In a message dated: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:03:20 EST Benjamin Scott said: If they were not installed via RPM, RPM will generally not know about them. Is there ever a case where RPM will know about something *not* installed via RPM? Is there some way to update the database with package info

Re: rpm question

2001-12-26 Thread Rich Payne
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Paul Lussier wrote: In a message dated: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:03:20 EST Benjamin Scott said: If they were not installed via RPM, RPM will generally not know about them. Is there ever a case where RPM will know about something *not* installed via RPM? Is there

Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)

2001-12-26 Thread Benjamin Scott
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, mike ledoux wrote: my inbox has 23481 messages in it right now in a 495166727 byte mbox--performance is fine with mbox ... Really? Wow. Is that a single-user system where the whole mailbox can fit into RAM, or something? One of our customers has been hitting numbers

The Kernel VM Strikes Back

2001-12-26 Thread Benjamin Scott
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20011224_147_print.html#1 *sigh* I really thought we were out of the woods on that... -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other

Re: Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)

2001-12-26 Thread Derek D. Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Benjamin Scott hath spake thusly: On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, mike ledoux wrote: my inbox has 23481 messages in it right now in a 495166727 byte mbox--performance is fine with mbox ... Really? Wow. Is that a single-user

Re: Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)

2001-12-26 Thread Benjamin Scott
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, mike ledoux wrote: I'm not using IMAP, and that INBOX is one of the main reasons why I'm not--I've yet to find an IMAP server that is capable of dealing with the way I use mail. s/use/abuse/ ;-) I question whether any mailbox with that many messages in it can really

Re: Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)

2001-12-26 Thread Kenneth E. Lussier
Benjamin Scott wrote: We've been considering Cyrus IMAP, maildir format, and possibly a better filesystem (ReiserFS, most likely). I've been using the Courier mail system for a few months now with Maildir format, and it has solved a lot of performance issues. The nice thing is that it

[pri.gnhlug@iadonisi.to: Re: Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)]

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Iadonisi
Harumph! I'm used to a different mailing list which has the Reply-To: field set to the list. - Forwarded message from Paul Iadonisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:57:31 -0500 From: Paul Iadonisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large

Re: Large mailboxes (was: rfc2505)

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Iadonisi
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:35:33PM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: [snip] locally so the server doesn't need to process them every time. You also don't have to use the entire Courier system. You can individually get the IMAP server, the webmail system, and the filtering system (maildrop).

Courier MTA (was: Large mailboxes)

2001-12-26 Thread Benjamin Scott
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Paul Iadonisi wrote: That's actually one of the cool things I like about Courier. I was seriously looking at Courier for evaluation, but certain things in the FAQ turned me off. A lot of questions in the form of X doesn't work were answered with X is broken, don't use

Re: Courier MTA (was: Large mailboxes)

2001-12-26 Thread Paul Iadonisi
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:23:31PM -0500, Benjamin Scott wrote: [snip] I am interested in experiences -- positive, negative, or indifferent -- of people actually using Courier. (Or anyone not using it who has had interoperability issues with someone who was.) Me too. I just spent some

Re: Courier MTA (was: Large mailboxes)

2001-12-26 Thread Kenneth E. Lussier
Benjamin Scott wrote: I was seriously looking at Courier for evaluation, but certain things in the FAQ turned me off. A lot of questions in the form of X doesn't work were answered with X is broken, don't use it. In my world, interoperability is important. There are lots of broken